Comments

localresident

Drug testing for a job is stupid?? Lolwut? You are out of your rocker. If someone wants a job bad enough, then they would have the self-control to not use for the week leading up to the test. Pretty simple, really. If they aren't smart enough and don't have the least bit of restraint, then the last place they should be is anywhere near any sort of responsibility, however small, period.

CommonsenseSam

I think Coughlin should advocate the public listing of all City and County employees who have had charges of sexual harrassment made against them, and any fines paid out made public. We need to know if we (or are daughters) are a risk. The names, addresses and business interests of all those charged and found guilty should be posted. Unlike legal gun owners, these people actually have commited a crime or wrongful act. Let Coughlin "stand on principle" for this cause. Do it for our children, wives and daughters.

Christopher

By the way, Joew, the Constitution and the rights it bestows also effects the PRIVATE sector, otherwise I guess I could open a restaurant for "whites only", couldn't I? Dogma and zealotry never wins out against logic and facts Joew.

Christopher

Oh please, Joew, you're not that stupid, are you? "Probable cause"!!!? A joke. "I smelled something" "He looked funny". Frigging troopers are dogs apparently. Random drug testing to work at a grocery store, so maybe a guy who smoked pot a week ago can't work? BS, pure BS. As I said, people like you make me sick, your so-called support of the Constitution is a joke. Your so-called defense of all things American is a joke. AS long as it's a right wing violation, the entire Constitution is up for grabs in your opinion. Wrong is wrong. And remember, I AGREE that publicizing gun owners is wrong! I just added examples of similar things which you are just fine with because it fits your blinders wearing politics.

stangv8

That's what happens when you register weapons and their owners. Someone has access to that list and that someone is usually a low paid clerk who knows the ins and outs of their file system and would possibly be willing to sell that file for a handsome price.

joew

Christopher-we are discussing the government here not the private sector.Now please give me an example of someones pockets being searched for a tail light out? There has to be "probable cause" for that to take place. That is also part of Amendment IV.

judeye

I am not sure how I feel about publicizing the names of people who own handguns. It does seem to violate the right of privacy. Yet, as Christopher listed we violate that right all the time now for what we consider the "overall good".

Yet if a handgun is to be a deterrent for criminals, then why would you not want everyone to know you have a gun and are willing to use it if needed? Is this not the argument I have been hearing over the years?

If you have a concealed weapon don't you have to declare that if you get into a fight? I have a friend who carries a weapon at all times. He told me that if he gets into a fight..he must tell the person that he has a gun, not as a threat, but rather as full disclosure.

I believe what Mr Couglin was saying was the legal rights..not just opinions like we all are citing here. A HUGE difference.

Steiner

It was nice to see the down vote in the senate wasn't it ? uhoh, we will see more political haymaking from the democrats. i already saw weeping women on tv ! perhaps we can see full blown conversion disorder , that would be fun !

whoseits

Steiner

Christopher, the constitution only applies to the govt, not business. The supreme court said owning a gun is a right. driving is a privilege. Gun owners only think of 2nd amendment ? your kidding right ? How about those libs and their constant refrain, free speech, first amendment rights. The 2nd amendment does not exist of a liberal , only the 1st. we are seeing the mental unhinging of the liberals with respect to guns, starting with their leader, kim jong obama.

Christopher

The publicizing of the names and addresses of gun owners could actually place them in danger, it's like a shopping list for thieves. I don't care what anyone says about the Constitution, it just feels wrong to me that this is so-called "public information". But then I feel the same way about the publicizing of the names and salaries of public employees. So, maybe Mr. Coughlin is correct, we really don't have any rights to privacy in this country. Oh, and Joew, how do you feel about drug testing by for employment? I can't think of a more blatant example of "unreasonable search". How about searching the pockets of ctizens stopped for routine traffic offenses, like a tail light out? Pretty unreasonable search there, don't you think? There isn't a person on this thread that doesn't support what I see as Constitutional violations on a daily basis when it suits them. Funny how most Gun supporters forget every violation of the Constitution there is except for the 2nd Amen

joew

AMENDMENT IV-The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,PAPERS,and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated.......please send my $1,000 to the Wounded Warriors Project post haste!

rdnewt

Coughlin, you sir, are a moron. It has been deemed that yelling fire in a crowded theater does not fall under the 1st amendment rights. The reason for this is twofold; Mass hysteria and panic, and the possibility of danger to people do to the previously stated hysteria. The same could be said for the publicizing of names and addresses of gun owners. This could cause unrest and panic amongst ignorant people who fear inanimate objects marching out of the house and expelling bullets at them, as well as it could cause a danger of physical harm to life and property by those who choose to be ignorant, (or those who just want to steal the guns). The object is in a person's home, a home is a private residence protected under the 4th amendment, therefore the Constitution does give this privacy.

Now I normally will accept a personal check, but in your case, I must decline and will only take the $1000 in cash. BTW, does violating a woman's personal space violate her privacy?